White Supremacy is ‘the Most Lethal Threat to Our Homeland In Recent Years’

 

Biden: White Supremacy is ‘the Most Lethal Threat to Our Homeland In Recent Years’

He can only hope that the jihadis decide to cooperate with his Big Lie.

Mon Aug 9, 2021 

Robert Spencer

Share to FacebookShare to TwitterShare to Moreare to Print

Joe Biden, in a USA Today op-ed Tuesday that one of his handlers whipped up for him, claimed that “the most lethal terrorist threat to our homeland in recent years has been domestic terrorism rooted in white supremacy.” Old White Joe, or his ghostwriter, was in a pugnacious mood: “We cannot ignore it. We must confront the spread of hate-fueled violence in every form.”

You know what they say about the Big Lie: it gains acceptance through relentless repetition. That’s certainly what’s happening with the claim that “white supremacy” is the biggest terror threat the nation faces today.

A bit of reality: it wasn’t “white supremacists” who rioted all last summer in Portland, Seattle, Kenosha, Wisconsin, New York, Atlanta, Washington, DC, and numerous other cities that I have already forgotten, and who are still at it in Portland, and casting a long shadow over the entire nation, with the strong hint that violence will ensue after any racial injustice, however exaggerated, misrepresented, or fabricated. The ones casting that long shadow are not “white supremacists” but Leftists: Antifa and Black Lives Matter.

When Biden talks about “white supremacy,” what he really means are ordinary citizens who oppose the dominant political philosophy – including me. Lies such as the ones Biden’s hack spread in USA Today are disseminated in service of solidifying the hegemony of that philosophy.

Whoever wrote this arrant and divisive agitprop for Biden is echoing a common line on the Left these days. Former New York City police commissioner Bill Bratton told Shepard Smith recently that “for the last 20 years our biggest concern was international terrorism — ISIS, Al Qaeda,” but “now it’s here and it’s us, and it’s the citizens of the United States, some of whom are rebelling against everything we thought we believed in for the last 300 to 400 years.” (Apparently Bratton subscribes to the 1619 Project, which dates America’s founding not from 1776, but from 1619, so as to add on 150 extra years of slavery and oppression.)

Former FBI director James Comey has also repeated this nonsense. Asked by a British broadcaster if he thought “far-right extremism in the US” was “a greater danger to the country than Islamist terrorism,” Comey answered in the affirmative, and added: “The threat has slowly risen as Donald Trump and those around him have withdrawn the control rods. America has always had a radioactive stew of racist conspiracy-minded misogynist people oriented towards violence. We’ve always had that in this country. But we’ve managed over generations to contain it inside a containment building as you would with a nuclear waste pile and put control rods down into it which we’re cultural. And that calmed the radiation. And over the last five years Donald Trump and those around him have pulled the rods out with signals and dog whistles and sometimes explicitly.”

A former Homeland Security Department counterterrorism official, Nate Snyder, likewise also affirmed that the biggest terror threat the nation faces today comes from “violent white supremacists, neo-Nazis, sovereign citizens, militia movements.”

Yeah, sure, Nate. We remember “white supremacists” rioting and burning down cities all over the country. We remember all those “white supremacist” terror attacks.

The real terrorists only get mentioned to claim that the “white supremacists” are even more dangerous. Last September, the far-Left hate site Raw Story took the opportunity of the 19^th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 jihad terror attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people to advance the claim that nowadays, the foremost threat the nation faces is not from jihadis, but from – of course – “far-right white supremacists who love Trump.” It’s as predictable as it is absurd.

The Raw Story piece, written by Alex Henderson and picked up from the even loonier AlterNet, claimed that “although the 9/11 terrorist attacks underscored the dangerous fanaticism of far-right Islamist groups, countless Republicans and supporters of President Donald Trump have ignored or downplayed another terrorist threat from the far right — white supremacy and white nationalism — and that threat is alive and well in the Trump era.”

Henderson’s claim wasn’t original, either. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Mogadishu), in a 2018 interview, fed the fires of the “white supremacist terror” hysteria when she asserted that “our country  should be more fearful of white men across our country because they are actually causing most of the deaths within this country.” Omar also offered a ready solution: “Profiling, monitoring, and creating policies to fight the radicalization of white men.”

Sure. Because there are a lot of radicalized white men. They’re virtually all in Antifa, but who cares about the details?

As ubiquitous as this propaganda is, insistent repetitions of Big Lies doesn’t make them true – even when they’re repeated by Old Joe himself. The Leftist propaganda demonizing all opponents of the Left’s agenda as “white supremacists,” and painting those “white supremacists” as some massive threat, is especially insistent these days. And the propaganda is a prelude to action.

Robert Spencer

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/08/biden-white-supremacy-most-lethal-threat-our-robert-spencer/

 

The Infrastructure Bill Is the Royal Road to Communism

I used to think the idea that the USA could turn communistic was nonsense. It could never happen here.

No longer.

The way 17 (possibly more) GOP senators have folded in like sheep for—or should I say colluded with Democrats on—the 2700 page trillion-dollar infrastructure bill is but one more indication of this appalling trend that is crossing over into a new reality.

I am not even going to go into the fact that—other than those who created this boondoggle, and even with them, it’s questionable—no one has had the time to really read it, let alone study its implications. As Senator Hagerty pointed out, it’s twice the length of the Bible.

But something jumped out at me as particularly alarming—the intrusion into our cars.

Yes, we have plenty of driving regulations, many justifiable, but in this case we’re going two steps further, the second of which is especially dangerous and redolent of the c-word. Neither one is good.

The first is that mileage taxation is under study. That would mean that people who live in distant suburbs and commute to work—most often the less well-off due to the lower property values further from cities—would be double-taxed, since they already pay a tax for their gas.

The intent of this is to drive people who want a home of their own out of the suburbs and exurbs and into cities where they must live in apartments where they are ultimately more easily controlled. This exacerbates a statist trend that has been going on since the Obama administration.

Meanwhile—and here’s the yet more ominous part—we will all be monitored via computer access inside our cars for alcohol intake, ostensibly, or so we are told, for our own good.

This may sound like a little thing, but it’s not. It is one more rather large step into the ongoing death of privacy and into state control. Once systems like this are turned on, they can only expand.

Most readers have heard of the Chinese communist “social credit scores” that track and then rank for their obedience citizens of that country via their cellphones. But as far as I know, even the CCP has not put mechanisms like this in their citizen’s cars.

Of course, we must turn off our cellphones to have that freedom—and even then it’s tricky (see what Apple’s been up to lately)—but cars were once the one zone of true privacy for Americans. For that too, if this legislation goes through, we can say “no longer.”

This was obviously not of great concern to the 17 referred to above, nor was it apparently bothersome that the infrastructure legislation is an obvious stalking horse for the forthcoming Green New Deal legislation. That GND has little to do with the environment but almost everything to do with the furtherance of American Marxism.

(Incidentally, although few realize it, the United States already spends nearly as much on social welfare as the alleged socialisms of Scandinavia. We are en route to passing them by a considerable amount.)

So who are the 17? This time, as opposed to my previous article, they must be named because—enough is enough—the job of our legislators is to represent the views of his or her constituents. I would be willing to bet my house that in no more than one or two of these instances, at best, is this even remotely the case.

This isn’t always true. In some situations, most would agree, a person should indeed vote his or her conscience that might, temporarily at least, go against his constituents. But to say this kludge of a bill being rammed down the country’s throat—and, yes, I would like to see infrastructure improvement, as would most people—is such a situation is laughable.

Some on the list, like Burr, are thankfully about to retire, but many are not. For them, come primary time, you know what to do.

• Roy Blunt of Missouri
• Richard Burr of North Carolina
• Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia
• Bill Cassidy of Louisiana
• Susan Collins of Maine
• Kevin Cramer of North Dakota
• Mike Crapo of Idaho
• Lindsey Graham of South Carolina
• Chuck Grassley of Iowa
• John Hoeven of North Dakota
• Mitch McConnell of Kentucky
• Lisa Murkowski of Alaska
• Rob Portman of Ohio
• Jim Risch of Idaho
• Mitt Romney of Utah
• Thom Tillis of North Carolina
• Todd Young of Indiana

FINAL NOTE: To understand what’s happening to our country, I would highly recommend this video from the Academy of Ideas. It’s quite brilliant—and scary. But, properly understood, it’s an excellent incentive to act.

Roger L. Simon

https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_morningbrief/the-infrastructure-bill-is-the-royal-road-to-communism_3939048

Israeli scientist says COVID-19 could be treated for under $1/day

 https://www.jpost.com/health-science/israeli-scientist-says-covid-19-could-be-treated-for-under-1day-675612

Double-blind study shows ivermectin reduces disease’s duration and infectiousness • FDA and WHO caution against its use

Ivermectin, a drug used to fight parasites in third-world countries, could help reduce the length of infection for people who contract coronavirus for less than a $1 a day, according to recent research by Sheba Medical Center in Tel Hashomer.

Prof. Eli Schwartz, founder of the Center for Travel Medicine and Tropical Disease at Sheba, conducted a randomized, controlled, double-blinded trial from May 15, 2020, through the end of January 2021 to evaluate the effectiveness of ivermectin in reducing viral shedding among nonhospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19.

Ivermectin has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration since 1987. The drug’s discoverers were awarded the 2015 Nobel Prize in medicine for its treatment of onchocerciasis, a disease caused by infection with a parasitic roundworm.

Over the years, it has been used for other indications, including scabies and head lice. Moreover, in the last decade, several clinical studies have started to show its antiviral activity against viruses ranging from HIV and the flu to Zika and West Nile.

The drug is also extremely economical. A study published in the peer-reviewed American Journal of Therapeutics showed that the cost of ivermectin for other treatments in Bangladesh is around $0.60 to $1.80 for a five-day course. It costs up to $10 a day in Israel, Schwartz said.

In Schwartz’s study, some 89 eligible volunteers over the age of 18 who were diagnosed with coronavirus  and staying in state-run COVID-19 hotels were divided into two groups: 50% received ivermectin, and 50% received a placebo, according to their weight. They were given the pills for three days in a row, an hour before a meal.

The volunteers were tested using a standard nasopharyngeal swab PCR test with the goal of evaluating whether there was a reduction in viral load by the sixth day – the third day after termination of the treatment. They were swabbed every two days.

Nearly 72% of volunteers treated with ivermectin tested negative for the virus by day six. In contrast, only 50% of those who received the placebo tested negative.

IN ADDITION, the study looked at culture viability, meaning how infectious the patients were, and found that only 13% of ivermectin patients were infectious after six days, compared with 50% of the placebo group – almost four times as many.

“Our study shows first and foremost that ivermectin has antiviral activity,” Schwartz said. “It also shows that there is almost a 100% chance that a person will be noninfectious in four to six days, which could lead to shortening isolation time for these people. This could have a huge economic and social impact.”

The study appeared on the MedRxiv health-research sharing site. It has not yet been peer reviewed.

Schwartz said other similar studies – though not all of them conducted to the same double-blind and placebo standards as his – also showed a favorable impact of ivermectin treatment.

His study did not prove ivermectin was effective as a prophylactic, meaning that it could prevent disease, he cautioned, nor did it show that it reduces the chances of hospitalization. However, other studies have shown such evidence, he added.

For example, the study published earlier this year in the American Journal of Therapeutics highlighted that “a review by the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance summarized findings from 27 studies on the effects of ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 infection, concluding that ivermectin ‘demonstrates a strong signal of therapeutic efficacy’ against COVID-19.”

“Another recent review found that ivermectin reduced deaths by 75%,” the report said.

BUT IVERMECTIN is not without controversy, and hence, despite the high levels of coronavirus worldwide, neither the FDA nor the World Health Organization have been willing to approve it for use in the fight against the virus.

Prof. Ya’acov Nahmias, a Hebrew University of Jerusalem researcher, has questioned the safety of the drug.

“Ivermectin is a chemical therapeutic agent, and it has significant risks associated with it,” he said in a previous interview. “We should be very cautious about using this type of medication to treat a viral disease that the vast majority of the public is going to recover from even without this treatment.”

During Schwartz’s study, there was not any signal of significant side effects among ivermectin users.

Only five patients were referred to hospitals, with four of them being in the placebo arm. One ivermectin patient went to the hospital complaining of shortness of breath on the day of recruitment. He continued with the ivermectin treatment and was sent back to the hotel a day later in good condition.

The FDA said on its website it “received multiple reports of patients who have required medical support and been hospitalized after self-medicating with ivermectin.”

The “FDA has not approved ivermectin for use in treating or preventing COVID-19 in humans,” it said. “Ivermectin tablets are approved at very specific doses for some parasitic worms, and there are topical (on the skin) formulations for head lice and skin conditions like rosacea. Ivermectin is not an antiviral (a drug for treating viruses). Taking large doses of this drug is dangerous and can cause serious harm.”

The World Health Organization has also recommended against using the drug except in clinical trials.

IN CONTRAST, Schwartz said he was very disappointed that the WHO did not support any trial to determine whether the drug could be viable.

Last month, Oxford University announced a large trial on ivermectin effectiveness.

Schwartz said he became interested in exploring ivermectin about a year ago, “when everyone was looking for a new drug” to treat COVID-19, and a lot of effort was being put into evaluating hydroxychloroquine, so he decided to join the effort.

“Since ivermectin was on my shelf, since we are using it for tropical diseases, and there were hints it might work, I decided to go for it,” he said.

Researchers in other places worldwide began looking into the drug at around the same time. But when they started to see positive results, no one wanted to publish them, Schwartz said.

“There is a lot of opposition,” he said. “We tried to publish it, and it was kicked away by three journals. No one even wanted to hear about it. You have to ask how come when the world is suffering.”

“This drug will not bring any big economic profits,” and so Big Pharma doesn’t want to deal with it, he said.

SOME OF the loudest opposition to ivermectin has come from Merck Co., which manufactured the drug in the 1980s. In a public statement about ivermectin on its website in February, it said: “Company scientists continue to carefully examine the findings of all available and emerging studies of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 for evidence of efficacy and safety. It is important to note that, to date, our analysis has identified no scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies; no meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease, and a concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies.”

But Merck has not launched any studies of its own on ivermectin.

“You would think Merck would be happy to hear that ivermectin might be helpful to corona patients and try to study it, but they are most loudly declaring the drug should not be used,” Schwartz said. “A billion people took it. They gave it to them. It’s a real shame.”

And not moving forward with ivermectin could potentially extend the time it takes for the world to be able to live alongside the virus, he said.

“Developing new medications can take years; therefore, identifying existing drugs that can be re-purposed against COVID-19 [and] that already have an established safety profile through decades of use could play a critical role in suppressing or even ending the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic,” wrote the researchers in the American Journal of Therapeutics. “Using re-purposed medications may be especially important because it could take months, possibly years, for much of the world’s population to get vaccinated, particularly among low- to middle-income populations.”

COVID: 90% of patients treated with new Israeli drug discharged in 5 days

 https://www.jpost.com/health-science/covid-90-percent-of-patients-treated-with-new-israeli-drug-discharged-in-5-days-675961

The Phase II trial for an Israeli COVID drug saw some 29 out of 30 patients, moderate to serious, recover within days.

Some 93% of 90 coronavirus serious patients treated in several Greek hospitals with a new drug developed by a team at Tel Aviv’s Sourasky Medical Center as part of the Phase II trial of the treatment were discharged in five days or fewer.

The Phase II trial confirmed the results of Phase I, which was conducted in Israel last winter and saw 29 out of 30 patients in moderate to serious condition recover within days.

“The main goal of this study was to verify that the drug is safe,” Prof. Nadir Arber said. “To this day we have not registered any significant side effect in any patient from both groups.”

The trial was conducted in Athens because Israel did not have enough relevant patients. The principal investigator was Greece’s coronavirus commissioner, Prof. Sotiris Tsiodras.

Arber and his team, including Dr. Shiran Shapira, developed the drug based on a molecule that the professor has been studying for 25 years called CD24, which is naturally present in the body.

“It is important to remember that 19 out of 20 COVID-19 patients do not need any therapy,” Arber said. “After a window of five to 12 days, some 5% of the patients start to deteriorate.”

The main cause of the clinical deterioration is an over activation of the immune system, also known as a cytokine storm. In case of COVID-19 patients, the system starts attacking healthy cells in the lungs.

“This is exactly the problem that our drug targets,” he said.

CD24 is a small protein that is anchored to the membrane of the cells and it serves many functions including regulating the mechanism responsible for the cytokine storm.

Arber stressed that their treatment, EXO-CD24, does not affect the immune system as a whole, but only targets this specific mechanism, helping find again its correct balance.

“This is precision medicine,” he said. “We are very happy that we have found a tool to tackle the physiology of the disease.”

“Steroids for example shut down the entire immune system,” he further explained. “We are balancing the part responsible for the cytokine storms using the endogenous mechanism of the body, meaning tools offered by the body itself.”

Arber noted that another breakthrough element of this treatment is its delivery.

“We are employing exosomes, very small vesicles derived from the membrane of the cells which are responsible for the exchange of information between them,” he said.

“By managing to deliver them exactly where they are needed, we avoid many side effects,” he added.

The team is now ready to launch the last phase of the study.

“As promising as the findings of the first phases of a treatment can be, no one can be sure of anything until results are compared to the ones of patients who receive a placebo,” he said.

Some 155 coronavirus patients will take part in the study. Two-thirds of them will be administered the drug, and one-third a placebo.

The study will be conducted in Israel and it might be also carried out in other places if the number of patients in the country will not suffice.

“We hope to complete it by the end of the year,” Arber said.

If the results are confirmed, he vowed that the treatment can be made available relatively quickly and at a low cost.

“In addition, a success could pave the wave to treat many other diseases,” he concluded.

RECIPES

 

Don't throw those potato peels away! Turn them into delicious dishes.

Potato peel crisps

Ingredients

Potato peels

Oil

Salt and pepper

Spices (any favourites)

Method

Clean the peels.

Put the potato skins into a bowl and add the oil, salt and pepper, and any other spices you like.

Spread the peels on a baking sheet.

Bake in the oven for 8 to 10 minutes at 220ºC.

Note: Watch them from time to time, some smaller ones would need to be removed sooner.

https://www.iol.co.za/lifestyle/food-drink/recipes/recipes-dont-throw-those-potato-peels-away-turn-them-into-delicious-dishes-865f70f6-289f-44af-9773-1fd6620d4b9f

If your employer fires you because you won’t get the COVID vaccine, don’t expect to collect unemployment

 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/dont-expect-unemployment-benefits-if-you-dont-comply-with-your-employers-vaccine-requirement-11628287814?siteid=yhoof2

‘This could lead to tens of thousands of people across the United States without work or access to unemployment benefits because they refuse to get vaccinated,’ one employment attorney said

Each day more employers are telling employees they need to be vaccinated against COVID-19 to work in person or risk being fired.

On Thursday CNN revealed it had fired three unvaccinated employees for violating the company’s vaccine requirement for in-person workers, according to an internal memo signed by Jeff Zucker, the cable network’s president, and obtained by the New York Times.

Unlike millions of Americans who were laid off during the pandemic, the three former CNN employees likely won’t qualify for unemployment benefits, employment law experts told MarketWatch.

CNN parent company WarnerMedia, a unit of AT&T T, +0.07%, declined to comment on the firings.

In most states, individuals have to prove they’re out of work through no fault of their own to collect unemployment benefits.

“This often means that they are let go due to a lack of work,” said Alana Ackels, a labor and employment lawyer at Bell Nunnally, a Dallas-based law firm.

“Typically, an employee who is terminated for failing to comply with company policies is not eligible for unemployment benefits, which would include refusing to comply with a company’s COVID-19 prevention policies, masking requirements or vaccine requirements,” Ackels told MarketWatch.

But an employee who has proof of a medical exemption or religious objection to receiving a COVID-19 vaccine may still be eligible to collect unemployment benefits if fired, said Rebecca Dixon, executive director at the National Employment Law Project, a nonprofit that advocates for worker’s rights.

Otherwise, refusing to get a COVID-19 vaccine, if your employer requires one, “is akin to an employee’s refusal to submit to permissible drug tests or participate in safety trainings,” said Ronald Zambrano, employment law chair at West Coast Trial Lawyers, a Los Angeles–based law firm. That is, such an employee, when terminated, would not qualify for unemployment benefits, Zambrano said.

Ultimately, “this could lead to tens of thousands of people across the United States without work or access to unemployment benefits because they refuse to get vaccinated,” Zambrano said.

What if employees quit because they don’t want to get vaccinated?

Quitting over refusal to get vaccinated when an employer requires it appears unlikely to improve one’s chances of securing unemployment payments.

“If you quit because of the mandate then you’d have to have good cause attributable to the employer in order to collect unemployment benefits,” Dixon said. “Good cause is usually viewed from that of a reasonable person. Given the overwhelming evidence of the safety of the vaccine, it’s likely that good cause would not be found” in the case of a person who quits a job because of a vaccine mandate.

That said, state workforce departments can update “eligibility requirements such that, depending on the circumstances, employees fired for refusing to get the COVID-19 vaccine could be eligible for unemployment benefits,” Ackles said.

The Department of Labor didn’t respond to MarketWatch’s request for comment.

Economic Report: How workers quitting is a signal for economic recovery

The Texas Workforce Commission, noting that “[e]very unemployment insurance claim is reviewed on a case by case basis” and that “what happens in an unemployment claim is dependent upon the individual facts,” said that an employee “may be eligible for benefits if you were fired for reasons other than misconduct.”

The commission, while noting that most people who quit jobs are deemed ineligible for unemployment compensation, observed that it is possible to qualify if it is demonstrated that they quit “for good cause connected with the work.”

Officials at the commission did not indicate whether any individuals fired from a job for refusing to be vaccinated had qualified for unemployment benefits or whether any employer have been charged, as the commission suggested was possible.

“Businesses concerned about being charged for unemployment benefits should check the latest guidance from their state unemployment commissions to confirm whether an employee fired for refusing the vaccine would be eligible for benefits,” Ackles said.

Chicken with Rice

 

Oven-Baked Chicken with Rice (Cafe Delites)
For Chicken
2 Tbsp olive oil
2 tsp light brown sugar, (OPTIONAL. FOR KETO use a brown sugar substitute)
1 tsp dried oregano (or dried parsley)
1 tsp mild sweet paprika (or hot)
1 tsp each garlic powder and onion powder
1/2 tsp dried thyme
1 tsp salt
1/4 tsp Cracked black pepper, to taste
6 skinless chicken thighs, bone in or out

For Rice
1 large onion, finely chopped
4 cloves garlic, minced
4 Tbsp oil
1 tsp salt
1/4 tsp cracked black pepper
1 1/2 cups hot chicken broth (or stock)
1 1/4 cups hot water
2 Tbsp butter
1 1/2 cups long grain white rice

For Mushrooms (Optional)
2 Tbsp butter
2 cloves garlic, minced
14 oz (400g) button mushrooms, quartered
1/4 cup chives (or green onions), divided
Salt and pepper, to taste
2 Tbsp fresh chopped parsley, to garnish

Preheat oven to 350°F (180°C).

In a shallow bowl, mix together the olive oil, sugar, oregano, paprika, onion powder, garlic powder, thyme, salt and pepper. Add the chicken and coat each piece evenly with the seasoning. Set aside, allowing the flavors to absorb into the meat. If time allows, marinade overnight for a deeper flavor.

Spray a large baking dish (10-inch x 15-inch OR 25 x 35 cm) with nonstick cooking oil spray. Add the onion, garlic, oil, salt, pepper, HOT boiled broth, hot water and butter into the dish. Mix well to melt the butter and combine. Stir in the rice.

Arrange thighs in the dish over the rice, cover with foil and bake for 30 minutes. Uncover, spray chicken with oil and bake for an additional 25-30 minutes or until the chicken is cooked right through to the bone and rice is soft. Change oven setting to broil to brown the chicken and crisp rice (only needs 3-5 minutes).

Remove chicken thighs, mix the rice through, then arrange the chicken back on top of the rice. Cover and allow it to rest for 10 minutes to set all of the flavors in the hot dish. The rice will finish off cooking while resting.

While chicken is resting, prepare mushrooms (Optional): Heat butter in a pan over medium-high heat. Sauté garlic until fragrant (30 seconds) and add mushrooms; cook until softened. Stir in 2 tablespoons of chives and season with salt and pepper.

Transfer chicken onto a plate; fluff rice with forks, then mix the mushrooms through the rice. Arrange chicken back onto the rice in the dish, garnish with remaining chives and chopped parsley.

NOTES: Bone-in chicken thighs bake in the same time as rice, which makes them the perfect cut of chicken for this recipe. They also guarantee juicy chicken pieces without drying out. There's nothing worse than dry chicken.

Skin-OFF thighs work so much better when compared to skin-ON thighs. During testing, we found leaving the skin-on resulted in gluggy, sticky, half raw rice. Too much chicken fat seeped into the rice while baking.

You can use bone-in chicken breasts in this rice casserole. Cook time is the same as chicken breasts are thicker than chicken thighs.

Chicken drumsticks can be used with skin on or off. Both work well.

Arrange your chicken over the rice as the image above shows. We found chicken MUST be placed over the middle section of the rice to ensure the rice gets cooked. Leaving the middle uncovered resulted in a few raw grains.

Long grain rice is the best rice to use and cooks evenly. Basmati rice or Jasmine rice can be substituted with the same liquid ratio and cooking time.

Please do not use short grain rice, medium grain rice, risotto, paella or minute rice.

FOR BONELESS CHICKEN THIGHS AND BREASTS: Add rice into the baking dish WITHOUT chicken. Cover with foil and bake rice in the oven for 30 minutes.

Remove pan from oven, uncover and arrange chicken over the top. Return to the oven, uncovered, for a further 20-25 minutes, or until the chicken is cooked though and the liquid has absorbed. Rice should be soft. Continue with the recipe.

PREBOIL LIQUID: Adding boiled (hot) chicken broth to the rice allows the cook time to be reduced while giving you perfectly cooked rice.

Please pre-boil your broth while preparing the rest of your ingredients, ensuring hot boiling chicken broth is being added in Step 3.

If you don't have chicken broth, use 4 cups boiling water and mix in 4 teaspoons chicken bouillon or stock powder.

NUTRITION” Calories: 513kcal | Carbohydrates: 48g | Protein: 29g | Fat: 18g | Saturated Fat: 4g | Cholesterol: 117mg | Sodium: 1205mg | Potassium: 691mg | Fiber: 2g | Sugar: 2g | Vitamin A: 575IU | Vitamin C: 12.4mg | Calcium: 47mg | Iron: 2.3mg

🌽🍆🍅🍍🍠🍤🍗🧀🍔🍟🍕 🍏🍎🍐🍊Please recommend this page & be sure to follow the Coconut Whisperer which continues the traditions of Cheese the top Food and Recipe channel on Disqus 2017-2019 🌽🍆🍅🍍🍠🍤🍗🧀🍔🍟🍕🍏🍎🍐🍊

https://disqus.com/home/forum/the-coconut-whisperer/